[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lbird, from each according to abilities, to each according to needs does break the link between work and reward.  Someone who is unable to work still has their needs fulfilled, someone who is a poor worker may well receive more and better than a hard worker.

YMS, you're an individualist, whereas I'm a Democratic Communist.Thus, I don't look at 'individuals' (whether 'poor' or 'hard').Marx tells us that it is an eternal natural link for humans, between 'work' and 'reward'.That 'link' is a socially productive link, and that 'link' must be controlled by democratic means.Abilities, needs and rewards will be decided democratically.That is Communism, and it is not individualism, as you and robbo seem to think.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The next step is to generalise it even further, and break the link between work and reward altogether.

That is not Communism."From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" links social labour with social rewards, and 'abilities, needs, labour and rewards' can only be determined democratically.Not individually, as I think that you and robbo have argued.stuart should ponder the differing positions that we're taking.I'm taking a Democratic Communist position, but I'm not sure how you or robbo will characterise your position(s). From what I've read from youse, I think stuart's criticisms are well-founded.'Individual decisions' requires an 'impersonal' mechanism to co-ordinate, and that can only be a 'market mechanism'. If stuart is in favour of both 'individualism' and 'markets' (as I think he is – he can clarify this later), I think he is at least being consistent, even if I disagree with him.I have problems with you and robbo, because I find you both to be inconsistent, claiming to be both 'individualists' and 'socialists'.[edit] that is, the 'generalisation' you speak of, has to be collective and democratic.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Stuart,we already have 'within firm communism' so most of the supply chain is communised, the only matter is to open that out to a within society communism.  We don't charge co-workers for our time, and we don't engage in market activity when we co-operate within firm, we carry out instructions and tasks as concretely defined, and get our paycheck at the end of the month. 

[my bold]Perhaps that is stuart's point, YMS.'Paycheck AT THE END of the month'.Not during or before, at the whim of the worker, prior to having produced anything, but after the worker has produced.'Free access communism' suggests 'access to the paycheck' (to continue the analogy, not to suggest 'money') at the discretion of something other than the firm.I'm a Democratic Communist, so I'd suggest the 'discretion' is social, not individual, and so is democratic, not whim, but I know that my views do not find favour with the non-democrats, like you, here.So, you have to answer stuart's reasonable objection with a 'non-democratic' answer.

[LBird]

Perhaps a look at 'housing' as an issue regarding 'abundance'.If we look  at housing using the concept 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', then we can see that 'housing' is supposedly, unsuffixed, 'abundant'. Many bourgeois own more than one house, many own several, and some in business own thousands. There are also hundreds of thousands of empty houses in the UK, so clearly there is 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' (which they call simple 'abundance', a concept which hides class content).But when looked at using the concept 'abundance-for-proletariat', we can see a shortage of housing for workers, especially young, low-paid, unemployed, or poorly-educated workers. Many workers, even if they find relatively 'good' jobs, will never be able to find decent 'housing'. Perhaps as a society, we'll go back to 'rented slums' as the basis of 'housing' for workers.So, to sum up, if we use the unsuffixed, bourgeois concept of 'abundance', we can see that there is an abundance of 'housing' – there are empty houses everywhere, as empirical confirmation of this apparent 'fact'.But, if we employ the class conscious concepts of 'abundance-for-bourgeois' and 'abundance-for-proletariat', we can start to see the contradictory 'truths' for each class.To discuss 'abundance' is a concession to the ruling class, and employing this concept means that we'll lose the argument, because 'empirical reality' supports the notion of 'housing abundance'. From there, it's a short step to blame lazy, stupid, drunken workers for not working hard enough to buy those 'empty houses' which are clearly in 'abundance'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

The idea that human wants are infinite and insatiable…

[my bold]Now, stuart, you've moved from the concept of 'abundance-for-individual' to the conservative concept that I outlined earlier, which stresses an undifferentiated 'humanity' (the 'organic' analogy), and which is 'abundance-for-all'.If you wish to use this conservative concept, that's fine, but you should really say that you're employing this, especially to yourself, so that you can understand why a socialist that employs the different concepts of 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' and 'abundance-for-proletariat' will disagree with you.

stuartw2112 wrote:

We are hungry ghosts with infinite bellies.

Once again, stuart, this is merely bourgeois propaganda. I don't actually know anybody with a 'infinite belly', although I do know some people who argue the very same as you, but they're not class conscious workers.Rather than 'infinite', most workers I know want a good, enjoyable, well-paid job, to be able to look forward to a decent pension and retirement at a reasonable age (55? 60? 65?), a proper holiday in the sun each year, a house big and well-appointed enough for their families – these are hardly 'infinite' desires, and we are well capable of 'satisfying' these needs even today, never mind under some putative socialism.Of course, someone could argue that once workers have these needs fulfilled, they'll then want 'as much gold as they can eat' (Pythonism), but if we start from class analysis, rather than either 'isolated individuals' or 'we're all in this together' (the latter which your quote above suggests), then we're back to determining which concept of 'abundance-for' we wish to employ, to understand these issues.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I don't have a key concept and I've made my arguments already. Have nothing to add for now. All the best

Fine by me, stuart.I'm just pointing out that your post, supposedly criticising socialist views of 'giving undeserved stuff away for free':

stuartw2112 wrote:

So, one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that the arguments are wrong or shoddy, or do not chime with people's sense of right and wrong. "Give everyone stuff for free," sounds not only like a dream, but morally wrong and environmentally and economically dangerous. "Everyone should work and receive rewards according to their desert," sounds realistic, desirable and morally upright.

… is nothing to do with democratic socialism.If you think that your post captures 'socialist' views, then you're wrong.It's better if you argue with what I am saying (that 'abundance' must be related to a 'social consciousness'), rather than give a false account of 'what socialists argue for', and then simply dismiss that.I'm inclined to say that 'one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that' they, like you, don't seem to know what those 'arguments' actually are.You seem to have picked up your views of 'what socialism is' from the bourgeoisie, so it's not surprising that you 'reject' those arguments – so do we!So, we're on the same side, to some extent, at least!

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

So, one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that the arguments are wrong or shoddy, or do not chime with people's sense of right and wrong. "Give everyone stuff for free," sounds not only like a dream, but morally wrong and environmentally and economically dangerous. "Everyone should work and receive rewards according to their desert," sounds realistic, desirable and morally upright.Of course, maybe socialists are right and conservatives wrong. But you have to make the argument, and make it more and more convincing. You can't just say, why are these irrational fools disagreeing with me? 

[my bold]But you're using the arguments of the bourgeoisie, stuart.In this society, the concept "Give the rich stuff for free" is the reality.And the concept ""Every worker should work and receive rewards according to their desert" is the reality.Your use of 'everyone' (instead of 'the rich') in the first case, and 'Everyone' (instead of 'worker') in the second case, just hides this reality.We agree that 'deserts' should follow from 'work'.That's our slogan, 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.There is no asocial, ahistorical 'everyone' getting 'stuff for free' or 'undeserved reward'.It's just that our social judgement of what is 'ability' and 'needs' (and what is 'free' and 'deserved') will be decided democratically, and not determined by 'money' and an 'individual's' ability to store it and thus determine their own solitary 'needs'.I think that this is 'making a convincing argument', and that any Democratic Communist would agree with me.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: I'm happy to answer your questions, but could you first please tell me your sex, age, class, occupation, and so on, so I can know where you're coming from ideologically?

I thought that I'd explained, stuart.We only have to know 'individual traits' if we're using 'abundance-for-individuals' as our basic concept.Perhaps you are (and you should be open about this, if you are), but I'm not.I'm employing 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' and 'abundance-for-proletariat'.Are you using 'abundance-for stuart' as your key concept?

[LBird]

Since you seem to have approved of some of my first post, at least, stuart, perhaps I can elaborate the concept 'abundance-for'.If we start from 'abundance-for', the next question that arises is "for whom or what is the 'for' ".I'd suggest that this could be either a 'for' for 'individuals' or for 'social groups'.So, we would have, from the first perspective, 'abundance-for stuart', 'abundance-for-LBird', 'abundance-for-alanjjohnstone', etc., until all 7 billion individuals on this planet have their own, personal  'abundance-for'.There could be a perspective that is social, but not socialist. For example, a nationalist perspective could argue for 'abundance-for-British', 'abundance-for-French', etc.There could even be a conservative universalist perspective, which would stress 'abundance-for-all', an 'organic' view of humanity (which, to us, would be ignoring social and historical factors).But the perspective I would argue for is social and socialist, so that I would begin from the concepts 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', 'abundance-for-proletariat', 'abundance-for-peasantry', etc. This is clearly a class-based perspective, which you would expect me to embrace.So, in this discussion, I would be concerned to differentiate 'abundance-for-proletariat' from 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', in any discussion about 'abundance' and 'satisfaction', which were the two concepts that you outlined as worthy for discussion in an earlier post.Whilst 'abundance' is not linked to a 'satisfaction', it remains an empty discussion about 'piles of things'.Which concept do you wish to use, stuart? The separation of 'abundance' and 'satisfaction' (which I don't think you do, from what you've said), or from a version of 'abundance-for'?Do you wish to employ 'abundance-for-stuart', etc., as your latter posts suggest?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: I'm not using any political theory to understand these things, just my mind. But I think we've been here before.

[my bold]Yes, we have, haven't we?So, to you, 'just using your own individual mind' is in no way based upon a 'political theory', or the perspective of a class which since the 17th century has stressed 'individualism' as a way to 'understand these things', and in whose society you've been raised, socialised and educated?It's an ideological belief, stuart, the statement that "I'm not using any political theory to understand these things, just my mind".What's more, the belief doesn't stand up to scientific examination.Even with 'rocks'. Ask Einstein.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: Good points actually, mostly agree, except democracy is no answer to the economic question. See link above.

Thanks, stuart.On the issue of 'economic democracy', this is an ideological issue.I'm a Democratic Communist, and I think that you've said that you're not.That's fine that you disagree with me, but I think that you should make clear exactly which political theory that you're using to understand 'abundance' and 'satisfaction'.Unless we clarify the perspectives from which each contributor is viewing the problem, we'll run into misunderstandings.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I want others to join in with this topic thread…

Well, here's my tuppence worth.The core of the problem is the separation of 'abundance' from 'satisfaction'.The concept 'abundance' is defined in 'material' terms, outside of any 'ideal' terms.If we use Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (ie. theory and practice), and link 'abundance' and 'satisfaction' to both material and ideal factors, we would employ the concept 'abundance-for'. That is, the issue of 'material abundance' can't be separated from the issue of 'ideal satisfaction'.As a society, we have to decide democratically what 'abundance-for' means.To discuss 'abundance' in simple bourgeois economic terms (meaning 'as much of anything as can be imagined') is to fall into bourgeois thinking.This is related to the scientific notion of 'real' (meaning 'outside any consideration of consciousness'). This is a bourgeois invention, dating from the 'scientific revolution' of the 17th century.We must insist on the concept of 'real-for'. This is the lesson of Einstein, that 'reality' only has a meaning for a consciousness.So, the ideological belief in 'matter' (which can be known in itself) is related to the ideological belief in 'abundance' (which has no social relation to 'satisfaction').stuartw2112 is pointing the way to these answers, with his discussion about 'abundance' and 'satisfaction', but fails to link the two concepts together, and doesn't realise that to talk of 'abundance' as being about 'things', rather than to talk about the social relationship of 'abundance-for', which we humans can control by voting, because it is a social concept amenable to democracy, which leads stuart to 'Green', rather than 'Red', answers to the dilemma.I suggest we clarify what we mean, in this discussion, by 'abundance'.Is it an 'amount' out there, outside of our consciousness (ie. it's 'material') or a 'social estimation' (ie. it's 'ideal-material')?PS. this question is also related to our views of Marx's 'value'. Is it an 'amount' in commodities, which can be counted/measured because it's quantitative, or a social relationship, which can't be counted, and so is qualitative?Is 'abundance' quantitative or is it qualitative?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The key phrase for us (of cours) is:

Quote:

I haven’t really read as much of Marx as I should have done.

From what I've read of Marx, ALB, I think that that quote from Corbyn also applies to the SPGB.So, it is a 'key phrase for' the SPGB, but not in the way you mean it.If fact, the quote really should be aligned to:

SPGB Materialists wrote:

We have really read too much of Engels than we should have done.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird might well be right…science is not reality. It creates a false world so it can answer its own a prior questions and answers… Now i'm becoming more anti-science as i am anti-intellectual because of this thread..

It's important to realise that those espousing Marx's 'idealism-materialism' are not 'anti-science', alan.We have to define 'science' and its activities/methods in a different way to that of the bourgeoisie.So, we are pro-proletarian science, and we are anti-bourgeois science.You're correct to say that 'science creates the world' (human theory and practice), but it doesn't create a 'false world', but a world which 'makes sense' to the class that controls (and defines) 'science'.Clearly, our 'science' will understand the world in a different way to the bourgeoisie: one example of this science from the proletarian viewpoint is Marx's Capital. This critiques bourgeois ways of creating the world we live in, from a different class perspective.

[LBird]

Yes, I thought that you would understand my Marx-inspired response, SP! If it's good enough for Charlie to prevaricate on details, it's good enough for me.But, like most workers discussing socialism, I too share your 'annoyance' (though I'd probably term it 'enthusiastic anticipation' to hear more details, to help inspire more workers).

SocialistPunk wrote:

So when I ask for "meat on the bones", I'm simply asking for your ideas on practical approaches to democratically controlling knowledge. I'm sure you would agree that ideas are a prelude to action?As knowledge is a social product, it might be a good idea to look at how it is produced. That means taking a look at education and how it could look in socialism. That would need a new thread on education under socialism.

If you start a new thread, on 'knowledge production and education', we can move over to that – I'm sure that the mod's toleration, of the diversity of this one, is stretching to breaking point, now.

[Author]

Posts